By clayton m. collier (Ccollier) on Sunday, April 11, 1999 - 12:25 pm:
I, also, cannot understand why a system that has such a phenomenal effect in reducing Novice Drivers crashes are not generating more debate than is happening at the present time.
Did anyone identify why the New Driver, who traditionally out crashed the experienced one, were not prominent here?
I will, at times, ask my students this question.
Here are some of their answers:
1) The students were better trained. ( Unless the Driver Trainers of Ontario had changed their method of teaching substantiality starting in 1994, than perhaps we should be looking there for guidance.) I would suspect, however, that they did not. Were there CDs. or simulators present in their teachings? Again, probably not, at least in the ones that were not professionally trained.
2) They have better road system in Ontario. Did the road system change so much from 1994 onward to have such a drastic effect? If so, than it should have had the same effect on the majority of the drivers of Ontario who are more experienced and Mature, and who incidentally, are having the majority of the collisions even pre- graduated licensing. I doubt it, also.
3) They have better Graduated Licensing in Ontario. Perhaps.
Revisiting the Fall of 1996 issue of Driver/Education , Mr. Alex Jerrim, of Australia, quoting what research are telling us:
"Improved skills alone are not sufficient to ensure New Driver Safety. Indeed, the safety effects of good driving skills appear to be offset by overconfidence and increased risk exposure.
Knowledge of how to control the car is not as critical to safety as individual motivation: Strong motivation makes up for weak skills better than strong skills make up for weak motivation. Without strong motivation to reduced the risk, advanced skills training can lead to more crashes- not fewer."
Let us first look at the one motivating factor that is common to us all that inhibits risk taking- FEAR.
For Me, as a Driving School Owner/Operator, the motivating factor that’s inhibits my risk taking is the FEAR of losing my driving privilege and thus my Driving Training carrier.
For most, it is the FEAR of losing their mobility and all of the other financial, physical, social and ethical detriments that come along with all crashes.
In Nova Scotia, last Christmas season, saw no incidences of drunk driving fatalities- here is why. Three weeks prior to the Christmas season, a tougher new law was introduced and passed for drinking and driving in which a person would lose their licence for one year for the first offence. This, along with a very visible campaign against drunk driving conducted by the Police Departments, RCMP, and MADD ensured that the message had gotten through. The FEAR was instilled in any would be drinking drivers.
And so to the Novice Drivers of Ontario. It was the FEAR of the impending test to come was, by far, the most motivating factor contributing to the drastic decline of their crash rates. The context of this test as with any Driving Test, cannot be credited with reducing the majority of the crash rates, however, it’s mere presence was enough to ensure that. To the Government of Ontario’s credit, they have optimized their Graduated Licence System by highly publicizing their intent to test all New Drivers, under the scrutiny of ‘highly trained’ Examiners, before graduating out of the system. To ensure it’s continued success, the Ontario Government must not allow their system to seem to become passive in their approach to the testing part.
In Nova Scotia, for example, the shear nature of our somewhat passive system, ensures it will not be as effective as it can be. In our system, we will say that if you are involved in a collision at which you are at fault, or if you have violations such as speeding, you may be called for a re-test. With only some being recalled for the re-test or passive interview with an Examiner, while others not, the word amongst the youth quickly spreads, and FEAR of being recalled is diminished and the risk taking is accelerated. Change one word in the above sentence- may- to WILL ( and widely publicized it) you will have the same effectiveness as we saw in Ontario! Mr. Whilde, in his book, TARGET RISK, may agree with Me. As human beings, we are unable to fully access the losses against the gains if the losses are not clearly laid out in front of us.
I believe it is the Test or at least the ‘threat’ of a Test is the key element to ensure road safety, not just for the Novice Driver, but also, for the majority, experienced drivers- the real teachers of the Novice Driver.
I also believe that we’ve been traditionally testing the wrong people.
The Insurance Bureau of Canada will tell us that ‘the 16- 24 year olds make up 12% of the driving population, yet they’re having 25% of the road fatalities and 27 % of the casualties.’ We must presume, than, that the rest- 88% -are experienced, presumably more mature, older drivers and make up the remainder of the fatalities and collisions, 75% and 73% respectively. The majority of the Novice Drivers will not fall under the age 16- 24 but rather 16- 19 or 20, making the percentage of the Novice driving population smaller and increasing the percentage of the experienced ones.
Statistics Canada reported in 1993 for example, said that 333 males and 147 females for a total of 480 died in automobile collisions.
In the age group 20- 44, 1,246 males and 451 females were killed.
Yes, the youth is over represented here as always, but if the new driver is looking around their driving environment and seeing the majority perform antics that are inconsistent to their Driver Training will slowly/quickly revert to the ‘norm’ of that driving environment.
The Novice Driver could be expected to have some collisions because of their inexperience, immaturity and all other social factors relating to youth, however, the majority, experienced, mature driver should not be considered to have such problems.
The problem here is that the experienced driver has had many ‘near misses’, many high risk taking adventures, before their crashes. They have relied on their experience to back them up should anything go wrong. It is only when two high risk takers meet at the same place and at the same time, collisions occur.
The REAL problem is that the observing Novice Driver will try to imitate the actions of the experienced ones and cannot draw on the valuable experience of the older driver and therefore are crashing sooner and more often.
As legislators, policy makers, insurance companies and driver trainers, we are quick to advocate changing or toughening up laws and recall the Novice Driver. We are also very quick to recall a Senior driver who had a collision . Yet we are very reluctant to recall a driver who has been found at fault in a collision or who has had a major infraction in the age group not considered in any of the above. I believe that a person ,in any age group, should be recalled should they be involved in an infraction as we would recall any of the above. Again, we cannot have a double standard, one for someone else, while another for Me- the experienced driver.
Perhaps the big question that should be asked here is, why is it that the males are dying in automobile collisions 3.5 times more than the female? There is, however, a lengthy explanation for this, but must be addressed at another forum.
As mentioned above, I believe we have been testing the wrong people sense Governments took on the ‘responsibility’ of Licensing Novice Drivers.
Lets take a look at the Novice Driver first- the one who’s doing their utmost to do things right.
The Novice Driver will generally endure up 25 hrs. of their time to spend in a classroom setting. They will take 8-12 hrs of driving with a qualified Driving Instructor. Many of them will pay, out of their own pockets, a fair sum to attain their Driver’s License. Any quality Driving School/Instructor worth their salt, would test their students, not just based on their vehicle handling abilities, but on their behavior in the classroom as well, before handing over a certificate. The Driving School/Instructor should have most of the say about the quality of their students because of the length they have been together. The School/ Instructor have much more at stake here to produce safe drivers as it will be their certificate that the student will carry with them into the driving world.
A test at this stage with a new person, who has the power to give or reject the driving privilege to the student, will produce an inadequate assessment no matter how long or short it may be. Many do not get any sleep the night or nights prior to the test, they are very tense and nowhere near the same person they were before the test day was announced. Some will even get sick, cry or postpone the test till another date, in hopes of feeling better next time! Any action on the part of the Examiner, whether intentional or not, such as not giving enough time to make turns, stern look, or abrupt direction giving, etc., will ensure the student returns for another go at it. Again, I ask, why are we doing this to someone who is doing their darndest to do things right?
It is has been stated that a Driver’s driving abilities peak at test time. Beyond this point, and the driver’s sense of safe driving begins to diminish and some ( maybe most) will fall to sub- standard.
The Government Examiners should be retained for the ones who choose not to take driving instructing from a qualified instructor. More importantly, however, they must be retained for the ones who are doing things wrong!
Here is a situation I know of that happened to one of my students who had a collision involving a ‘mature, experienced’ older driver. The student was 18 years old, the other 35-40 year range. The police officer who investigated the collision, was adamant the new driver was at fault. After talking to the student and the police officer, I began to ask questions regarding the collision- things just didn’t add up- including statements from other witnesses. The police officer, decided he could not charge the 18 year old, but still was not convinced that the older driver was at fault either. A no fault collision.
Under Nova Scotia Law, the new driver was reviewed and was required to do the written and road test again.
However, if the ‘experienced’ driver was collision free for a number of years- no demerit points- ( passive bureaucratic nonsense), against him, would not be subjected to the same ordeal as the 18 year old. What special privilege did the ‘experienced’ driver had, that the New Driver didn’t have?
The double standard scenario is very prevalent here.
If we had the same for the ‘experienced’ driver as we have for the Novice or the Senior, we would be ensuring, to a much greater degree, that a person’s safe driving peak is not at test time, which is irrelevant, but will continue to peak to excellence as experience are accumulated. This has been proven to be the case we saw in the Ontario Graduated Licence.
No one really wants to be called back for a re- test and we will do what it takes to ensure we pass it when we are tested!
There is also one more segment of the Driver Training world that seem to be void of much scrutiny. That is- The Driver Training Schools/ Instructors themselves.
At the moment, I have no truthful way of monitoring my students as they progress through the Graduated Licence system and beyond. I can only rely on my callbacks to students I have taught 2 years ago. Most of them, no doubt, are truthful about their experience. But what about the one’s that are not, or the ones who could not be contacted? I really don’t know how effective my teaching has been. The consumer, who is putting forth a lot of time and money should have the opportunity to be informed of, at least, the average performance of my students past.
Surely, there must be a simple and effective way of monitoring student/ driving school performance. One suggested way would be that I should be required, by law, to register every student I have taught, to be put under a section in my Driving School’s name. Plus, somewhere on the new student’s Driver’s License card would be a number assigned to Me. Anytime a student is involved in an at fault collision or violation, an investigating police officer would be required to enter that number in his/her report. At the end of specific period, a calculation and a ratio can be extracted and a ‘norm’ would be established. Those numbers should be made available to the general public. The regulating body of Driver Trainer Licensing should have the authority to revoke the license of any Driver Trainer establishment who falls short of the ‘norm’ in a given number of years.
As Mr. Christianson has noted above, the day when every Driving Training Establishment is roped together, should be eliminated. The good ones will grow and thrive while the ones who sells their certificate for short term economic gain will not last long.
At the moment, we are compelled through competition, keeping of specific training techniques, etc., we do not wish to have a student of ours to leave and go to another Training establishments. Even when our gut feelings will tell us that a particular student is doomed to have problems. We will put them through anyway, and more often than not our gut feelings will ring true. We are now starting to set ourselves up with becoming beaten when we compare the numbers in the trained and untrained! If, however, a concerned Driver Trainer/ School is able to overcome the above difficulties and the student is turned away, he/she will have the option of going to another driving school or taking the test with the Government Examiner on their own.
Perhaps a rating system could be used based on the students behavior in the classroom and on the road that a Driving School/ Instructor could alert the proper authorities- Governments or Insurance Companies of their concerns. If a concerned student is involved in an at fault collision or a violation that require a callback, a Driving School/Instructor cannot be held responsible and should not be reflected in the overall performance of their Schools. After all, it is the safety of all road users, not just our students course completion and safety should be our utmost concern.
Today, as in the past, the Driving Training Industry has been a great outlet for concerned parents regarding their children. They hope that the Driving School or Governments will legislate safety, thus making the job, for example, of having our children home and not driving after midnight. Naturally, most concerned parents will send their children to Driving Schools to be better equipped for the complex driving world today, but some do not. Thus, when we add up the numbers of crashes of the Driving Schools and compare it with the numbers of the untrained we are once again at a disadvantage.
We have only a very short time to do our best to observe and reshape the ‘desired driver behavior’, a time which is adequate providing the behavior of the parent is on par with the Driver Instructor’s.
Once the Driver Training industry has established itself as a creditable force in producing safe drivers, than, and only than, will governments, insurance companies, parents and most important, the students themselves, will look upon us as such.
Clayton M. Collier
